The Committee

Now we’re getting to the good stuff. Once we got past the bottom half of the list, it became a lot harder to organize. It’s safe to say that all ten of these consoles deserve a place in history for one reason or another, but there can only be one #1. These are the ten best console launch lineups of all time, according to our panelists. READ MORE

With the launch of Nintendo’s latest console, the Wii U, now behind us, we here at Snackbar Games have decided it would be best to bring back The Committee one last time and rank console launch lineups. When examining these specific consoles and their games, it became clear to us just how paltry certain system offerings were compared to others. It put some system launches in perspective and gave us a chance to understand what exactly makes a good launch and what doesn’t. Here are the first ten from our top 20. READ MORE

The Committee is in session. We’re taking on various issues in gaming, and our word is final. In this installment, we rank the launches of portables, just in time for the 3DS’ debut.

Staff picks for best launch games for each system are in bold.

Launch titles: Centipede, Game and Watch Gallery 2, Tetris DX

Justin Last: You can’t argue with a classic, and Tetris DX is exactly that. The original Game Boy launched with the classic puzzler as a pack-in and was well-served by it. The GBC followed suit and featured an updated version. Two new game modes and a few new music choices layered on top of classic Tetris gameplay make the GBC launch a good one. You’ve also got another classic to play in Centipede, but I’ve yet to meet a person that can’t be captivated by Tetris and keep playing just once more until it is well past bedtime.

Shawn Vermette: It’s hard to recommend a handheld launch as a good one when it launches with just three games. Though, it’s even harder when those three games consist of 2 remakes and a collection. As great as Tetris was, it just can’t carry two different system launches on its own. The lack of any games worth even looking at for purchase dooms the Game Boy Color to the obscurity, as far as handheld launches go.

Graham Russell: You have to give the Lynx this: the launch wasn’t boring. It clearly could have launched with early-’80s Atari arcade classics, but it didn’t. California Games is the clear standout, but you should really check out Blue Lightning. The team at Epyx pulled off a full-color 3D shooter in the Starfox vein, and they did it on a handheld in 1989. If Atari had a creative force like Miyamoto and a better business plan, this system would be a milestone rather than a footnote.

Justin Last: Platform launches need to be strong and hopefully include a system seller. Atari doesn’t have a mascot series to push units, it didn’t launch with a puzzler that appeals to players of all ages, and one of our two favorites from the lineup was California Games. There’s nothing wrong with California Games, but anybody who wanted to play it could do so on a number of other platforms. Nobody rushes out to buy a new platform for the hottest new game they can play on something else.

Graham Russell: You can make a joke about the Virtual Boy. It’s okay, it really is. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a somewhat enjoyable joke. While the system’s gems (Mario Clash and V-Tetris) didn’t make the U.S. launch (or, in the case of the latter, the U.S. at all, though the system’s region-free), Mario’s Tennis was a more-than-capable showpiece. Red Alarm‘s dual-digital control scheme worked great for 3D action. (It arguably led to the dual-analog setup we use today.)

Gerry Pagan: Ah, the Virtual Boy. Even a gem like Red Alarm couldn’t salvage a launch for a system that was ill-concieved from the start. That leaves Pinball, a terrible Punch-Out! clone and tennis. And while Mario’s Tennis was fun, in the end you paid money for 15-minute chunks of eye-hurting Pong. A terrible launch for a completely flawed “handheld”.

Andrew Passafiume: The N-Gage has been a running joke ever since it launched. It’s practically forgotten now, but it did have a decent selection of games. The games weren’t amazing, but those who actually decided to buy the system at launch were shown that Nokia at least tried to get some old favorites together. Like the GBA, it offered a decent variety of games that would fit every gamer’s needs.

Graham Russell: Oh, N-Gage. On paper, the system made sense, and with support from Sega, Eidos and Activision, it should have gained some traction. The horrible hardware decision to make you remove the battery to change the game? It was fixed in the second iteration, but by that time the system had lost its chance at success. It’s too bad, because no one was around for a rather-fun portable version of Civilization years before the release of Civ Rev, as well as some other late-life gems.

Shawn Vermette: All it really takes for a successful system launch is one or two good games, and the Game Gear had that. Castle of Illusion was a great Mario-style game, something badly needed on a non-Nintendo platform, and Columns is a Tetris-like game that is addictive enough to compare to Tetris without being a clone of it.

Graham Russell: A solid puzzler can salvage almost any lineup. Columns is about the best Sega’s ever done in the genre, and the colors in the game showed off the system’s main selling point over the venerable Game Boy. Unfortunately, an addictive game like that also shows off the system’s biggest weakness: its battery life.

Launch titles: Biomotor Unitron, Metal Slug 1st Mission, Pac-Man

Justin Last: Launch with guaranteed sellers – it’ll move units. Everybody knows Pac-Man and how to play it, and every kid that frequented an arcade at the time knew Metal Slug. Arcade games at home was big business and being able to take these two classics on a car trip was great. I can’t think of a single platform that shouldn’t launch with games like Pac-Man and Metal Slug. I’m still buying both series today on whatever platform they show up on, and seeing them in a modern launch lineup would certainly pique my interest, and I traditionally wait for a hardware revision.

Andrew Passafiume: NGPC’s launch is the perfect definition of barebones. Sure, it had a couple of decent games, but they are not games that get people running out to the store to buy the system. A launch either needs a variety of solid titles or a couple of strong games that are must-haves for any gamer. The NGPC was clearly lacking in both of these areas. Launching with only three games, it’s pretty obvious why the NGPC has become one of the many handhelds that are long-since forgotten by most.

Gerry Pagan: The DS had one of my favorite launch releases, if just due to the variety of fun games available. Super Mario 64 DS and Metroid Prime Hunters would later go down in infamy as mediocre games, but they, along with Spider Man 2 provided something for the action gamers to look forward to. Mr. Driller would fulfill the puzzle niche, as well as other groups with sports games and racing games. It was a launch that covered all the bases, and a strong start for the best-selling handheld in history.

Shawn Vermette: The Nintendo DS had a fairly robust launch lineup… in terms of sheer number of games. Unfortunately, it was a solid example of quantity not being equal to quality. The standout title of the launch was Super Mario 64 DS, followed by Mr. Driller, two sub-par racing games, two stripped-down sports games, two somewhat creepy ‘dating’ sims, a movie game, a port of a bad Sims game and, well, an IM client.

Graham Russell: The PSP launch was robust by design; the system’s architecture was meant for PS2 ports, and the day one lineup included over a dozen games that used that to its advantage. The best game at launch, though, was an original gem: Lumines. You could pick up Twisted Metal and Underground to show off the system’s graphical capability, but Lumines kept going back in the UMD tray. Why? It was the most addictive portable puzzler since the genre’s revered grandfather, Tetris.

Justin Last: The PSP launch suffered from the same thing the portable has suffered from since – many (if not most) of the games feel like they could be done better elsewhere. The GBA didn’t have this problem because 3D went to the console while 2D thrived on the handheld. With the PSP, though, we got games that felt like stripped-down versions of their console big-brothers. It’s also heavy in sports titles which isn’t guaranteed to contribute to a bad launch, but sports titles were already complicated enough and invested enough in multiplayer that I want them on a console.

Launch titles: Alleyway, Baseball, Super Mario Land, Tennis, Tetris

Graham Russell:Tetris. The Game Boy’s launch was somewhat small (though not by standards of the time), but if you have one magnificent game that shows off the system’s advantages, that’s really all you need. (Not that Super Mario Land wasn’t fun, and I found Breakout-clone Alleyway a substantial timesink.) It could be played a little at a time, it was simple to understand, and it was there when you had downtime. If modern mobile and phone gaming has a blueprint for success, it’s Pajitnov’s masterwork.

Gerry Pagan: While Nintendo’s first offering of a handheld console went on to release a myriad of great games, it’s launch offerings weren’t exactly grandiose. Super Mario Land and Tetris can only hold you for so long, and the other games aren’t exactly impressive. A rocky start for the Game Boy, but it at least later picked up with better games.

Andrew Passafiume: What the GBA lacked in an amazing launch title it more than made up for in several solid games. A lot of handheld launches rely on just one (maybe two) big games, but the GBA relied on several. A handheld Super Mario, a new F-Zero, a new Castlevania, and a few solid ports make up an impressive lineup. Above all else, it supplies the buyer with something most handheld launches lack: variety.

Graham Russell: I can’t say the GBA launch was a bad one. In fact, we’re generally in agreement that it hasn’t been equaled. The only way in which it’s a bit weak? Very few of the games are worth playing now. Most were ports, though very good ports and fun ones to play. Looking back, though, most have been completely outclassed by their successors. Which is how it’s supposed to be, I guess: after all, when a launch lineup is the highlight of a system’s life, something went very, very wrong.

The Committee is in session. We’re taking on various issues in gaming, and our word is final. In this installment, we rank the Zelda games for posterity in honor of the series’ 25th anniversary.

In support

Gerry Pagan: Following in the footsteps of what I consider the biggest trainwreck in the Zelda series, Spirit Tracks does so many things right on a handheld that it revived my love for the franchise altogether. The clever and challenging dungeon design was a very welcome change when compared to the no-brainer dungeons in Phantom Hourglass, the touch controls were revamped so they actually worked, and the dynamics/interactions between Link and Zelda over the course of the game finally gave players a look inside the series’ namesake.

In opposition

Graham Russell: I don’t think Spirit Tracks is a bad game. In fact, it’s one of the better games on the system, but that just isn’t enough to contend with the rest of the franchise. To me, both DS entries are awkward hybrids, trying to bring analog controls into a game designed like Link’s earlier 2D adventures. That external frustration just knocks them down a bit from the rest of the series.

In support

Andrew Passafiume: Like Minish Cap, this game also gets a lot of undeserved hate. First, the touch screen controls were odd at first, but they work incredibly well once you get used to them, making the game move at a pretty fast pace. Being able to draw and make marks on your map is one of the best additions the series has seen and is helpful in any dungeon. The biggest complaint? The Temple of the Ocean King. People hated having to return to that dungeon multiple times, but I thought it was fun. The dungeon itself was excellently-designed and, in my mind, is the culmination of what makes Zelda dungeons great in the first place.

In opposition

Gerry Pagan: I wanted to like this game. I really did. I mean, it’s a sequel to my favorite Zelda game, so it should earn some points, right? Linebeck and the auto-sailing system are the only good things I can mention about it, since everything from the combat and controls to the easy and bland dungeon design are atrocious. There’s really no challenge to it other than fighting the game’s poorly executed touch controls and resisting the urge to throw away the cart after returning to the Temple of the Ocean King and redoing every puzzle for the 10th time.

In support

Mike Clark: Drastically changing the formula for a sequel isn’t always a bad thing. In fact, it can make a game even better despite the blatant change and Zelda II is one of those good games. Brutally hard in contrast to the first and a complete paradigm shift to a side-scrolling action-RPG, The Adventure of Link tried a different path and did really well at it. There are a few things one could nitpick about the title: the lack of maps, how small Link’s attack radius is, and a focus on non-linearity despite being a more linear title than its predecessor.

Yet even with these faults, the title is a strong one and worthy of praise. It paved the way for action RPGs of a different flavor compared to the prequel, and essentially functioned as a 2D version of what the later 3D titles would be (with some focus taken away from the RPG portion). People insult Zelda II for being “too different”, “too difficult” and “not Zelda-ish enough”, which all might be true but these only help to make a better product in being different and trying a separate route in style and design.

In opposition

Justin Last: Sometimes you need to take a chance. Sometimes that chance works out. Nintendo took a chance on Zelda II and eschewed everything that made the original great in order to try their hand at a more traditional side-scrolling RPG. It didn’t work. Zelda II is unnecessarily difficult, it is ugly (even for a NES game), and the magic is gone. Exploration doesn’t feel rewarding because the overworld is now a hub instead of a living, breathing, part of the Hyrulean landscape, and the scale seems out of whack because Link and any overworld monsters are often taller than the surrounding towns and caves. Equipment upgrading was replaced by experience levels in multiple areas, and combat was complicated by introducing attack and block heights and a magic meter. Concepts from Zelda II would eventually find their way into the series again, but the NES just wasn’t enough machine to handle them well.

In support

Andrew Passafiume: This is considered one of the weakest entries in the Zelda series by many, but I’ll never understand why. The game is gorgeous, the dungeons and puzzles are a perfect balance between simplistic and challenging, and the game is the perfect length for a portable experience. Some say it’s too easy or too short; while I disagree, I feel that those aren’t valid complaints as long as the game is fun. Minish Cap is a blast, and it is still the best handheld Zelda title to date.

In opposition

Gerry Pagan: Technically speaking, Minish Cap should be up there among the great 2D Zelda titles. But there’s just something about the game that feels lifeless. Outside of major story stuff, I can hardly remember things about the game like I do with the other Zelda titles, other than how short the game is. The kinstone system got a little out of hand at times, and some of the items you can collect are really of dubious nature as to how useful they are. It’s a good game, but it’s not as memorable as other games in the series.

In support

Mike Clark: This game is the whole reason we can thank for having this entire series and this ranking article alongside it! There’s an entire laundry list full of aspects that The Legend of Zelda created that are gaming standards. A fully non-linear adventure that was packed with secrets to discover and the first NES game to use the a save battery, this game was packed with innovation and good design choices.

The puzzles within the game weren’t as complex as later games, it did encourage the use of items and exploration to find your way through each area. Later games were more restrictive, but they also had more plot to them. It was one of the few to have a “Second Quest” or harder replay that completely changed the flow of the game – in contrast to Super Mario Bros. replacement of Goombas with Buzzy Beetles and shorter floating platforms – and paved the way for a plethora of games and series that drew inspiration from it.

In opposition

Shawn Vermette: Lots of people might argue that just because this was the original game, it deserves a higher spot in our ranking. Unfortunately, that doesn’t pass muster with me. Zelda did a lot of things right, but I just can’t get past the early NES graphics. I’ve never played it, and, due to the roughness of the graphics, I just don’t see me ever playing it, when I can get my classic Zelda fix with Link to the Past instead.

In support

Graham Russell: You know what? Four Swords Adventures doesn’t feel like a Zelda game. It feels more like Secret of Mana, and that’s a genre that’s significantly less well-trodden. The cooperative-competitive aspect is nice, and pulling out all the needed equipment for a full four-player adventure is rewarded with some innovative tech that could (and should) have been more successfully done with Wii and DS. It’s not epic like the rest of the series, but it wasn’t trying to be for a second.

In opposition

Andrew Passafiume:Four Swords Adventures is an interesting experiment, combining the great elements from the Zelda series with a local cooperative/competitive multiplayer element. You can play it by yourself, but the real fun comes from a full four-player game. The problem? Nothing about it stands out. The multiplayer is fun, but you’ll often be hindering your progress more than furthering it, making it feel less like a Zelda game and more of a generic multiplayer experience that feels somewhat similar to Zelda.

In support

Shawn Vermette:Ocarina of Time is, quite possibly, one of the best games of all time. So, it being first among Zelda games is, in my eyes, somewhat of a no-brainer. The puzzles and dungeons, the graphics(at the time), and the nostalgia factor(now), mean nothing else in the Zelda series can come close.

In opposition

Justin Last: We had to make the jump to 3D at some point. That doesn’t mean that the transition has to be smooth though. The Nintendo 64 was a lot of things, but a 3D powerhouse was not one of them. While capable of creating beautiful games like Paper Mario and Kirby 64,developers (including Nintendo) pushed the console to its limits and were not rewarded for it. N64-era 3D is not attractive, and the N64 pad was not designed for manipulating a 3D camera (though to be fair, neither was the GCN pad or the Wii remote). C-buttons just don’t do the job. Ocarina of Time could have and should have been great, but it was hamstrung at every opportunity by its platform. Maybe it’s better on the Virtual Console with a decent controller, but as it was released, Ocarina of Time is not the bright spot in the franchise that the fan base makes it out to be.

In support

Justin Last: The only thing better than one portable Zelda game is two portable Zelda games. And depending on what type of game you’d like to play, the Oracle games have you covered. If you’re looking for headier puzzles then grab Oracle of Ages. If you’re in a combat mood, then Oracle of Seasons is the game for you. Both games feature multiple maps (similar to LttP’s light and dark worlds) and puzzles that span the two of them. In OoA you often need to act in the past to create or clear paths in the future, and is OoS a path blocked with snow and ice is clear and open in the summer. The two games work in concert as well. When you finish one you can import your clear data into the other and continue the adventure. Importing data and beating both games is the only way to face the final boss and truly save Holodrum. Capcom makes great portable Zelda games, and the Oracle pair is no exception.

In opposition

Mike Clark: The biggest complaint here for the Oracle games is the password and trade system. They’re horribly unintuitive and force the player to deal with antiquitated Pokémon-styled trading nonsense that breaks immersion and brings the game down. On top of that, you can’t get the complete experience without having both games and a link cable which further permeates the consumerist bull that should be kept away from the Zelda series.

Beyond that, both games have difficult-to-navigate overworlds thanks to the duo’s time and season mechanics being gimmicky. Thankfully, Seasons works better than its counterpart with a focus on action. But Ages has some of the hardest dungeons in the series thanks to being focused on puzzles, which brings down the experience. It worsens even more so in that, despite being built on the Link’s Awakening engine, they chose to enlarge the size of the rooms beyond the Game Boy Color’s screen. This caused the puzzles to be even worse and further bring down a frustrating game that should have been better than what Capcom produced. While both do have their strong points, the carelessness and frustration within the puzzle design and the trading shenanigans hit hard in bringing the titles down.

In support

Shawn Vermette:Twilight Princess held more anticipation to me than any other Zelda game ever has, leading up to its release. Getting to play it on the Wii at a Wii preview event in Texas only heightened my anticipation more. I’m on the record as saying that most of the time, I really dislike motion controls. However, as rudimentary as they were, the controls in Twilight Princess were enough to vault it way up in my rankings out of the sheer enjoyment I got out of it when playing it.

In opposition

Mike Clark: The fans wanted a new 3D Zelda game and they were given Wind Waker. They cried foul and called for something akin to an Ocarina of Time remake. They were given Twilight Princess, and they still cried foul. A spruced-up OoT clone that took a lengthy period of time to develop, Twilight Princess fails in several places. The entire wolf form seemed tacked on for the purpose of some fetch quests, a few puzzles and as a form of warp.

In addition, Twilight Princess felt rushed and patched-together. The final two dungeons seemed significantly shorter than the prior well-built seven and felt thrown together, and the plot twists out of nowhere leaving it a muddled mess. On top of that, many of the game’s items become obsolete or worthless by way of upgrades or never being used again. And as the final nail in the coffin, TP is the 3D Zelda with the least amount of character interaction with few NPCs that actually have characterization or are even worth caring about. The game tries to be good, but functions as a sloppy, muddled, rushed mess.

In support

Graham Russell:Link’s Awakening walked the line between the simple charm of the NES originals and the interesting innovations of Link to the Past. It felt manageable, yet with tons of charm. The DX version brought it up to decent technical standards, and everything after it feels just a bit gimmicky.

In opposition

Shawn Vermette: Sure, tons of people love Link’s Awakening. I mean, who wouldn’t want to play a game with Link AND Yoshi in it? Well, I’d love to, but not if it means playing a game with Game Boy graphics. They limitations of the system just serve to frustrate me these days, no matter how critically acclaimed a game on it is.

In support

Gerry Pagan: People tend to unjustly compare this to Ocarina of Time, when both games share some fundamental differences. Majora’s Mask is a technical improvement over it’s predecessor, expanding even further with the special abilities gained via the use of masks (which were just an after-thought in OoT). The world is grittier and darker, with the world’s atmosphere increasing in tension and urgency as the moon that threatens to destroy Termina moves closer. If Ocarina of Time can be called an epic adventure, Majora’s Mask can be likened to a dark tale, where the stakes are much more personal than just “overthrowing an evil overlord”.

In opposition

Justin Last: Time limits are terrible, and Majora’s Mask is built on them. Combine that with my complaints about OoT (ugly 3D, bad camera & camera controls) and you have one of the low points in the series. I want to like Majora’s Mask. Darker, more sinister LoZ sounds great. Visiting a new land with new problems (Termina instead of Hyrule) is just the breath of fresh air the series needed. But the whole thing is just as clunky as its predecessor. 3D Zelda is better represented by the GameCube and the Wii. Low dungeon count doesn’t help Majora’s Mask either. Four is not very many dungeons, and replaying them is not fun. Unfortunately the replay mechanic made a return in the DS’s Phantom Hourglass, and it wasn’t fun there either. Majora’s Mask is not as bad as Zelda II, but the continuation of the OoT design and the introduction of strict time limits make Majora’s Mask a tedious chore to play.

In support

Andrew Passafiume: This is the ultimate Zelda game. It contains all of the best elements found in previous games, has the best dungeons, and some of the best versions of the classic music. It takes everything great about the original Zelda and improves it greatly. In my mind, when I think of the Zelda series, this is the first game that comes to my mind. The original set the groundwork and Ocarina of Time was the first time the series ventured in 3D, but neither felt as remarkable as this classic.

In opposition

Gerry Pagan: I personally find A Link to the Past a bit underwhelming. As good as the game is, I can’t feel the love that many people do for it, probably due to the low amount of NPC interaction and how little hinting there is to the existence of some of the hidden items. Nonetheless, it’s still a solid title, though not as charming as the Oracle titles were.

In support

Justin Last: I love Wind Waker. It is my absolute favorite Zelda game. The cel-shaded graphics, Link’s expressive eyes, and the gorgeous vistas that I got to sail across combined with franchise staples of solid dungeon design and responsive combat make WW a joy to play. Link’s story here starts out small and personal and grows to fill in the world-saving beats we all know and expect from the series, but through it all Link never really stops being believable as a kid. Some people were waiting for OoT’s adult Link to make a triumphant return, but I loved taking young Link through Dragon Roost Cavern, The Forbidden Forest, and the Tower of the Gods. I also love sailing. The King of Red Lions is a small enough ship to feel exciting when taking it across the waves, naval combat is fun, and whenever I hear it again I hum the sailing tune for days. WW is unabashedly child-like in its treatment of adventure from start to finish, and it is wonderful for it.

In opposition

Graham Russell: Most entries in the Zelda series have something going for them: the original started it all, Ocarina of Time took it into 3D, and Link’s Awakening hit a portable. I loved Nintendo’s creative renaissance during the GameCube era, but they tried a lot of things that were hit-or-miss. Wind Waker is fun, and I don’t mind the visual style. Is what’s essentially a change-of-pace release worthy of the best-of-all-time mantle, though?

The Committee is in session. We’re taking on various issues in gaming, and our word is final. This week, we look at writing and story in games.

In support

Justin Last: There are some wonderfully written games out there as well as some horribly written movies. Games like Bioshock, Half-Life 2: Episode 2, and Uncharted 2 may not stand toe-to-toe with film greats like Schindler’s List and Inception, but you’d be hard-pressed to find anybody who would rather watch Battlefield Earth or one of SyFy’s puppet-monster of the week made-for-TV movies. Just because the best movies have better writing than the best games does not mean that the worst movies have better writing than the best games as well..

In opposition

Graham Russell: Game writing can be good. It can be very good. It can regularly exceed that of your average summer blockbuster. As far as the achievement ceiling goes, though, the very presence of interactivity keeps a masterpiece from being as carefully curated as the best films of all time. For a more modern example, look at the directing style of David Fincher. He films a scene so many times from so many angles, cutting hours and hours of video into just seconds and creating just the experience he desires. Storytelling is more than just words on a script, and these visual cues make for a powerful tale. Game writing has to take into account that players aren’t experiencing things in the same way or at the same times, and they usually don’t get through the story in one sitting. Games can have wonderful, immersive worlds and stories within them, but it’s just not quite able to do things a passive medium can.

In support

Andrew Passafiume: Western-style storytelling generally offers more choices and plenty of interesting characters. A lot of Western games these days, RPGs especially, are incredibly non-linear, giving the writers room to explore many different possibilities. This alone opens up so many new ways for gamers to feel invested in the world the writers have created, and also care about the characters, rather than guiding them along a set path. Not to say linear storytelling never works, it can work quite often, but Western game developers/writers have taken more chances and had them paid off in big ways.

If you asked me five years ago, I might have said otherwise, but I feel Western games have really improved (and continue to improve) greatly in terms of writing.

In opposition

Mike Clark: I’ve always associated Eastern-style storytelling with third-person perspective, while Western-style has been in the first-person. Where in Western-styled games more often you are the character, Eastern has had established characters that you watch grow and develop as you control them.

With that, there’s this sense of detachment from the character in Western, like in games such as Fallout 3, where immersion and story development doesn’t seem as important. In going with Eastern-style, you watch as a character grows and develops, much like a novel. While it doesn’t have as much freedom as the other style, the characterization and by assocation the storytelling, seem to have less detachment and more substance to them. While I may not be in that game’s story as an avatar of myself, I’m more immersed because of who I control during the course of the game.

In support

Gerry Pagan: 8-bit and 16-bit games alone are proof enough that a game doesn’t need a good story to be great. We don’t play classics like Mega Man X or due to the engaging struggle between Reploids and Mavericks, nor does the recent Bayonetta’s flimsy plot reduce the quality of the top-notch visuals and combat. While it’s always nice to have a good plot to go with good gameplay, it’s usually a combination of awful aspects that bog down a game to the point where even its best feature isn’t enough to save it.

In opposition

Graham Russell: Here’s my sticking point with this debate: while there have certainly been games that have succeeded with no story at all, a bad story, like any other bad thing added to a good product, is just this grating thing that pulls things down. Otherwise great gameplay, interspersed with inane cutscenes, painful dialogue or just poorly-translated text boxes, gets taken down one notch into “just good” territory. A great story is immersive. A bad one has the opposite effect.